CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS.versusTHUNGATHURTHI SURENDER & ORS.

              [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 643


            CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS.                        A
                             v.
          THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER & ORS.
        (Civil Appeal Nos. 5579-5586 of 2001 etc.)

                   OCTOBER 19, 2010
                                                              B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
                    JJ.]

    Service Law:
                                                              c
     Seniority - Determination of - In State Medical and
H3alth Services - Initially single cadre for teaching and non-
teaching purposes in Medical Colleges - Candidates
obtaining post-graduate qualification given the task of
teaching - Rules amended making separate teaching and 0
non-teaching cadres - Qualification for non-teaching cadre
was graduate degree and for teaching cadre post-graduate
degree - Candidates from non-teaching cadre obtaining
lateral transfer to teaching cadre on acquiring post-graduate
qualification - Claim for taking into account their service as E
non-teaching staff, for computing seniority in the teaching
cadre - Held: The period of service of such candidates as
non-teaching staff cannot be taken into account for computing
their seniority in the teaching cadre - Andhra Pradesh
Medical and Health Services Rules, 1982.
                                                               F
     The medical service under the Medical and Health
Department was governed by Andhra Pradesh Medical
and Health Services Rules framed under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India and issued under G.O. Ms.
No. 43 dated 16.1.1982. Under the Rules, there was G
provision only for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons,
both for teaching and non-teaching purposes, in the
medical colleges and there was no post of Assistant
Professor. The Civil Assistant Surgeons who had
                            643
    644     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   acquired Post-Graduate qualification used to be given the
    task of teaching in the colleges. As this method was
    contrary to the Rules and Regulations, on the intervention
    of the Medical Council of India, the Rules were amended
    by G.O. M. No. 182 dated 29.3.1988 making separate
B   provisions for teaching and the non-teaching cadre.
    Under the amended Rules, the teaching cadre was
    separately constituted into a new cadres strength
    designated as Assistant Professors, and the non-teaching
    posts were separately categorized as Civil Assistant
c   Surgeons. The qualifications for the two posts were
    different. No channel was provided for interchangeability
    between these two cadres. Vacancies arose for the post
    of Associate Professors, and as the Department was not
    implementing the Rules, State Administrative Tribunal
    was moved. The Tribunal directed the Department to
0
    strictly follow the Rules issued under G.O. M. No. 154
    dated 4.5.2002.

        The Civil Assistant Surgeons, including the
    respondents, who were subsequently included in the
E   teaching cadre, after acquiring post-graduation
    qualification, claimed that for reckoning seniority in the
    teaching cadre their past services as non-teaching staff
    should also be taken into consideration.

F     The question for consideration in the instant cases
  was whether the Civil Assistant Surgeons with only
  M.B.B.S. qualification were entitled to seniority over those
  appointed as Assistant Professors from Civil Assistant
  Surgeons, already having Post-Graduate qualification,
G but were appointed after those Civil Assistant Surgeons
  with only M.B.B.S. qualifications.

          Allowing the appeals and the writ petition, the Court

          HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the candidates,
H
        CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.                  645
          THUNGATHURTHISURENDER
who had obtained lateral transfer from the non-teaching A
to the teaching line, would be entitled to carry their period
of service as non-teaching staff for the purpose of
computing their seniority in the cadre of Assistant
Professors, since the basic qualification for being
appointed as Assistant Professors in the teaching line B
was a Post-Graduate degree, which the respondents
acquired during the course of their service as Civil
Assistant Surgeons and were thereafter transferred to the
teaching line. Although there was no formal separation
between teaching and non-teaching staff, there was this c
existing distinction that those belonging to the non-
teaching line could not be appointed in the teaching line
till they had acquired the Post-Graduate degree. This
distinction always remained till 1988, when teaching and
non-teaching posts were treated as different cadres and
                                                              0
the seniority in the teaching cadre was calculated from
the date of their appointment as Assistant Professors.
Even if the feeder post for appointment of Assistant
Professors was Civil Assistant Surgeons at the initial
stage, the said situation stood altered with the E
amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health
Services Rules, 1982 whereunder Assistant Professors
could be recruited only by way of direct recruitment. [Para
23] [656-C-H]

     N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India (1992) Supp. (1)     F
SCC 584;Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey (2007) 5 SCC 535
- relied on.

     State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Dr. N. Ramachandra Rao
and Ors. (1990) 3 .sec 590; S.N. Dingra and Ors. vs. Union   G
of India and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 125 - distingusihed.
                    Case Law Reference:
   (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 584     Relied on.       Para 14
   (2007) 5 SCC 535             Relied on.       Para 14     H
    646    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      (1990) 3 sec 590                Distinguished.   Para 16
       (2001) 3 sec 125                Distinguished.   Para 16

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    5579-5586 of 2001.
B
         From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2001 of the High
    Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
    Petition Nos. 17106, 14531 of 1999, 14250, 14286, 14347,
    14351, 14425 & 14555 of 2000.
c                               WITH

    C.A. Nos. 5588-5592, 5587, 8498 of 2001.

    W.P. (C) No. 566 of 2003.
D        Anoop G. Chaudhari, T.N. Rao, Manjeet Kirpal, Dr.
    Lakshmi Narsimha, S. Udaya Kr. Sagar, Bina Madhavan,
    Vintia Sasidharan (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Y. Raja Gopala
    Rao, C.K. Sucharita, Nirala Das, C.K. Sucharita, Nirada Das,
    K.N. Rai, D. Bharathi Reddy, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Y.
E   Prabhakara Rao, Annam D.N. Rao, D. Mahesh Babu, T.V.
    George for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. This batch of Civil Appeals
F
    arises out of a common judgment passed by the Andhra
    Pradesh High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions allowing the
    same and setting aside an order dated 10th March, 1998,
    passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.
    No.3599 of 1995 and other connected matters and
G   consequently setting aside G.O.Ms. No.325 dated 15th June,
    1999. In that view of the matter, these Civil Appeals have been
    taken up for hearing together along with Writ Petition (Civil)
    No.566 of 2003.

H
      CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.        647
THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     2. The question to be decided in all the writ petitions was      A
in regard to the procedure to be adopted in determining the
seniority of Civil Assistant Surgeons in the Andhra Pradesh
Medical & Health Services.

    3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it is           B
necessary to set out the background in which the said question
arose.

      4. The Appellants and the Respondents are members of
the Medical and Health Department in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The Appellants herein were promoted to the post of C
Associate Professors and Professors by virtue of an order
passed by the Tribunal, which was approved by the High Court
and thereby attained finality. The present dispute concerns the
methodology which has been adopted by the State Government
for determining the seniority of those who were functioning as D
Civil Assistant Surgeons and, thereafter, opted for teaching and
were appointed as Assistant Professors, which was the feeder
post for further promotion to the post of Associate Professors
and Professors in the Medical Services.

     5. The Medical and Health Department in the State of             E
Andhra Pradesh is governed by Special Rules framed under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which, as indicated
hereinabove, are known as the A.P. Medical and Health
Services Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Health Services
Rules". Without going into details of the said Rules, it will be      F
sufficient for our purpose to consider the impact of the said
Rules and Government Orders on the question of seniority of
Civil Assistant Surgeons in the State Health Services.

      6. As early as in 1976, the Government of Andhra Pradesh G
felt the need for separation of the teaching cadre in medical
education. Accordingly, G.O.M. No.1170 dated 16th December,
1976, was issued separating the teaching cadre from the non-
teaching cadre and issuing executive instructions to implement
the same. This was also felt to be necessary on account of the H
    648    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   advice of the Medical Council of India, which otherwise
    threatened to de-recognize the medical certificates which had
    been granted to the students. Accordingly, the Special Rules
    were issued as mentioned hereinabove, by G.O.M. No.43
    dated 16th January, 1982.
B
        7. Originally, there were no posts of Assistant Professors
  and only the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons (CAS) was used
  for teaching in the medical colleges. Among them, those Civil
  Assistant Surgeons who had acquired Post-Graduate
  qualifications were given the task of teaching in the teaching
C colleges. According to the Appellants herein, there wa~ no
  watertight compartment between the teaching stream and non-
  teaching stream and whoever either had or subsequently
  acquired the Post-Graduate qualification was shifted to the
  teaching stream from the non-teaching stream. As this method
D was contrary to its Rules and Regulations, the Medical Council
  of India threatened to withdraw recognition to the medical
  colleges and subsequently the Rules were amended vide
  G.O.M. No.182 dated 29th March, 1988. By virtue of such
  amendment, the said Rules were divided into three parts, cf
E which the first part consists of only one Rule which provides that
  the service was to be divided into three branches, viz., Teaching
  cadre, Non-teaching cadre and Laboratories. Part II of the
  Special Rules prescribes separate rules for each of the three
  branches and Part Ill contains general and common provisions
F for all the three branches. One of the more important aspects
  of the amendment was that Rules 7 and 8 were deleted. Rule
  7 provided for special training as an Assistant Professor for
  the purpose of promotion to higher post. Rule 8 dealt with the
  preparation of half-yearly panels. While in the earlier Rules, the
G post of Assistant Professor in each specialty was to be filled
  up only by direct recruitment with persons having requisite
  qualifications, there was no provision for appointment by
  transfer from persons in the non-teaching cadre. Under the new
  Rules, the teaching and non-teaching cadres were separated.
H The posts of the teaching cadre were separately brought out
      CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.        649
THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
in a new cadre strength designated as Assistant Professors,           A
whereas non-teaching posts such as Civil Assistant Surgeons,
Deputy Civil Surgeons and Civil Surgeons were separately
categorized and the qualifications for these posts were also
different and distinct. What is of significance is that no channel
was provided for interchangeability between these two cadres.         B

     8. It is in this background that vacancies arose to the posts
of Associate Professors and Professors. As the Department
was not implementing the Rules, various Original Applications
were filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,         C
which were disposed of on 28th April, 2003, with directions to
the Departments to strictly follow the Rules issued under G.O.M.
No.154 dated 4th May, 2002. However, there were certain
deviations which resulted in Civil Assistant Surgeons also being
made part of the teaching cadre, thereby making such persons
eligible to be promoted as Associate Professors and,                  D
thereafter, to the post of Professors. It is this issue which is at
the centre of controversy in all these matters and which has
given rise to various questions relating to the main issue as to
whether persons who had joined earlier as CAS, with only
M.B.B.S. qualifications, and could not be appointed as Assistant      E
Professors since they did not have Post-Graduate
qualifications, and were subsequently appointed as Assistant
Professors after attaining such qualifications, would be entitled
to seniority over others who had already been appointed as
Assistant Professors earlier. In other words, would those CAS         F
with only M.B.B.S. qualification be given seniority over those
appointed as Assistant Professors from CAS, who already had
Post-Graduate qualification, but were 3ppointed after those
CAS with only M.B.B.S. qualification?
                                                                      G
     9. It is the case of the Appellants that the teaching cadre
constitutes a separate category for the purpose of appointment,
seniority and promotion. It consists of an administrative post
in Category I, such as Additional Director of Medical and Health
Services and non-administrative post in Category 11, such as
                                                                      H
   650    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A Professors. Clinical and Non-clinical. According to the
  Appellants. the feeder category for the post of Professor is
  Deputy Civil Surgeon, since re-designated as Associate
  Professor, and in case Associate Professors were not
  available, Assistant Professors belonging to Category VII. The
B minimum qualification for appointment to the cadre of Assistant
  Professor is a Post-Graduate degree. The Appellants when
  they were appointed as Assistant Professors already had a
  Post-Graduate qualification and in view of the existing practice,
  those Civil Assistant Surgeons, who had Post-Graduate
c qualification were selected and appointed as Assistant
  Professors. It is the further case of the Appellants that they had
  all been appointed as Assistant Professors on various dates
  ranging between 1982 and 1995. It is during this period only
  that some of the Civil Assistant Surgeons, who did not have
D Post-Graduate qualification, got admission in the Post-
  Graduate classes and completed their Post-Graduate courses
  during the years 1989 to 1995. The Appellants have mentioned
  that many of these CAS were students of the Appellants in the
  Post-Graduate degree course. After acquiring the Post-.
  Graduate degree, the said Respondents became qualified and
E eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professors. Accordingly,
  they were appointed as Assistant Professors on different dates
  between 1989 and 1995.

       10. It is also the case of the Appellants that in accordance
F with the Rules, after having completed five years of teaching
  as an Assistant Professor, a candidate who acquired the Post-
  Graduate qualification after his appointment as CAS, would
  become eligible for a further five years of teaching experience
  in the next category of Associate Professor, which would then
G make them eligible for higher promotion to the post of
  Professor. The Appellants have also tried to make out a case
  that according to the Rules, Deputy Civil Surgeons, presently
  re-designated as Associate Professors, and Assistant
  Professors, would have separate seniority in order of specialty.
H Accordingly, it is only the seniority in the category of Assistant
      CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.        651
THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Professors alone which is relevant for the purpose of promotion        A
to the post of Professor.

     11. In addition to the above, it has been contended that
the said issue is no longer res integra and that it has been held
by the Tribunal that in computing seniority in the category of Civil
                                                                       B
Assistant Surgeons, the period during which Civil Assistant
Surgeons did not have a Post-Graduate degree, could not be
taken into consideration for promotion to the post of Professor,
since Civil Assistant Surgeons could not be appointed as
Assistant Professors till they acquired the Post-Graduate
qualification. Accordingly, not having functioned as Assistant         C
Professor or Associate Professor after their appointment as
CAS, the said period, prior to their acquisition of Post-Graduate
qualification, could not be counted for the purpose of promotion
to the post of Professor.
                                                                       D
     12. According to the Appellants, the High Court erred in
counting the previous service of those Civil Assistant Surgeons,
who had acquired their Post-Graduate degree subsequent to
their entry into service as Civil Assistant Surgeons. Since for
the purpose of promotion to the post of Associate Professor            E
or Professor, a post-Graduate qualification was necessary, the
period during which they had functioned as Civil Ascistant
Surgeons, without having obtained a Post-Graduate degree,
could not logically be taken into consideration for computing
seniority for elevation to the post of Professor.                      F

      13. Another point which has been taken on behalf of the
Appellants is that without going before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioners in the Writ Petition could
not have challenged the Government Order by filing a Writ
Petition directly in the High Court. It has been canvassed that,       G
in any event, without any formal order having been challenged,
the proceedings before the Writ Court were not maintainable.

     14. In support of the first contention regarding the counting
of the period of service as Civil Assistant Surgeons prior to          H
    652    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A having obtained the Post-Graduate degree for computing
  seniority, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in N.
  Suresh Nathan v. Union of India [(1992) Supp. (1) SCC 584],
  wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court held that diploma
  holder Junior Engineers, who had obtained degrees while in
B service, were not entitled to count their service prior to obtaining
  the degree for computing the period of three years for the
  purpose of promotion. It was also laid down that in interpreting
  Service Rules, a construction which is in keeping with long
  standing practice prevailing in the concerned Department is to
c be preferred. The same view was taken by a three-Judge
  Bench of this Court in Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey [(2007)
  5 SCC 535], wherein it was reiterated that the reckoning of
  three years' experience required for promotion in the quota of
  Graduate Engineers, would be from the period when such
  degree was acquired irrespective of the number of years of
0
  service rendered as a diploma holder. The Appellants have,
  therefore, prayed for setting aside the said judgment and order
  of the High Court on the ground that the same had been
  delivered in contravention of the Medical Service Rules.

E      15. Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned Senior Advocate, who
  appeared for some of the respondents, submitted that the
  entire procedure adopted for recruitment to the post of
  Assistant Professors was contrary to the 1982 Rules which
  were promulgated under G.O.Ms. No.43 dated 16.1.1982. Mr.
F Rao urged that no appointment had been made in the post of
  Assistant Professors, but an option was given to Civil Assistant
  Surgeons who had acquired Post-Graduate qualification to go
  over to the teaching cadre on an ad-hoc basis. The selected
  candidates were chosen for the purpose of providing them with
G five years' teaching experience, but such selection was not
  done according to the Rules which only provided for direct
  recruitment. Mr. Rao submitted that there were neither any
  Rules nor guidelines providing for transfer from non-teaching
  to teaching posts. Mr. Rao denied the case of the Appellants
H that there was no watertight compartment between Teaching
      CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.        653
THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
and Non-Teaching disciplines and that whoever acquired Post-          A
Graduate qualifications was deputed to the Teaching side from
the Non-Teaching side. Mr. Rao submitted that even under the
1988 Rules appointment of Assistant Professors was to be by
way of direct recruitment.
                                                                      B
     16. Mr. Rao then contended that, in any event, as had been
held by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dr. N.
Ramachandra Rao & Ors. [(1990) 3 SCC 590], in the medical
world there are specialities and specialities and it is generally
accepted that they are not of equal importance or utility. But
promotions are allowed in the specialized disciplines and a           C
junior with a relatively less important speciality may be fortunate
enough to get faster seniority than his senior in a different
speciality. However, juniors who get accelerated promotion on
account of such fortuitous circumstances should not be allowed
to steal a march over their seniors for appointment to                D
administrative posts.

      17. Mr. Rao urged that "posting" and "appointment" are
two different concepts and often one is mistaken for the other.
Referring to the decision of this Court in S.N. Dhingra & Ors.        E
vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 125], Mr. Rao
submitted that in the said case this Court had, inter alia, held
that seniority would have to be counted on the basis of
continuous length of service from their initial appointment. Mr.
Rao submitted that those candidates from amongst Civil                F
Assistant Surgeons who had acquired the Post Graduate
qualifications and had been permitted to opt for the Teaching
line, could claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Professor
only from their entry into the teaching stream, and their previous
service as CAS would not count in reckoning their service in          G
the post of Assistant Professor, for the purpose of future
promotion.

    18. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned Advocate for the Respondent
Nos.14 to 17 in C.A.No.5589 of 2001, denied the submissions
made on behalf of the Appellants that'the transfers from the          H
    654   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Non-Teaching to the Teaching line were initiated by the method
  of pick and choose adopted for selection of candidates for
  appointment as Assistant Professors. Learned counsel also
  urged that these points had not even been urged before the
  Tribunal or the High Court. Mr. A.D.N. Rao reiterated Mr.
B Gururaja Rao's submissions that a person posted for gaining
  experience for several years, may not be entitled to the benefit
  of the said period for counting his seniority until he is actually
  appointed to the cadre.

       19. Mr. Anoop Chaudhari, learned Senior Advocate,
C appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, submitted that the
  decision to allow teachers from the Non-Teaching line to cross
  over to the Teaching line after they acquired Post-Graduate
  qualification, was a matter of policy of the State Government
  and the Court should not normally interfere with such policy
D matters, unless some grave injustice or ma/a fide intention was
  proved.

        20. Mr. Chaudhari submitted that seniority list in the
  teaching stream had been prepared on the basis of
E appointment of the candidates as Assistant Professors and the
  Respondents could not, therefore, claim that their service as
  Civil Surgeons be counted for seniority though they had not
  acquired the Post-Graduate degree and were not, therefore,
  entitled to be appointed against a teaching post prior thereto.
F Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the decision in Dr. N.
  Ramachandra Rao's case (supra) cited by Mr. Gururaja Rao
  had no application to the facts of this case since it dealt with
  the 1982 Rules and a person who did not have the requisite
  qualification for being transferred to the teaching cadre could
G not claim the benefit of seniority over those who had already
  been transferred to the teaching cadre since they had the
  requisite qualifications. Mr. Chaudhari urged that this was not
  a case of vertical upgradation in the same category but a lateral
  transfer from the non-teaching line to the teaching line after the
  candidate in the non-teaching line had acquired the requisite
H
      CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.        655
THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
qualifications for such transfer, as would be evident from Rule     A
14 of the 1988 Rules.

     21. From the submissions made on behalf of respective
parties what emerges is that the Medical Service under the
Medical and Health Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh        8
is governed by the Special Rules framed under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution and issued under G.0.Ms. No.43
dated 16th January, 1982. Under the said Rules, there was no
post of Assistant Professor and provision had been made only
for appointment of Civil Assistant Surgeons, both for teaching      C
and non-teaching purposes in the medical colleges. The
Medical Council of India threatened to withdraw recognition to
the medical colleges unless separate provision was made to
separate the teaching and the non-teaching cadre by
appointment of Assistant Professors, which resulted in the
amendment of the Rules vide G.O.Ms. No.182 dated 29th               D
March, 1988. The said Rules provided for the division of the
medical services into teaching cadre, non-teaching cadre and
 laboratories. Under the new Rules, the teaching cadre was
separately constituted into a new cadre strength designated as
Assistant Professors, whereas non-teaching posts such as Civil      E
Assistant Surgeons, Deputy Civil Surgeons and Civil Surgeons
were separately categorized and the qualifications for these
 posts were also different. As vacancies arose in either of the
 cadres, several applications were filed before the Andhra
 Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which were disposed of with       F
directions to the Department to strictly follow the Rules issued
 under G.O.Ms. No.154 dated 4th May, 2002.

      22. In this state of facts, those Civil Assistant Surgeons,
who had acquired the Post-Graduate degree and were                  G
subsequently included in the teaching cadre, claimed that for
reckoning seniority, their past service as non-teaching staff
should also be taken into consideration. According to the
Respondents, the doctrine of eclipse would apply in a case like
this. According to the Respondents, the date of reckoning of
                                                                    H
    656    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A seniority in the teaching and non-teaching posts which formerly
  formed one cadre, the period during which candidates from the
  non-teaching line did not have the Post-Graduate qualifications,
  would be the period of eclipse and upon acquisition of such
  qualification, the right to seniority would stand revived and
B would get precedence over those who may have already been
  appointed as Assistant Professors since they had the requisite
  qualification.

          23. We are unable to accept such a proposition on behalf
    of the Respondents since although there was no formal
C   separation between teaching and non-teaching staff, there was
    this existing distinction that those belonging to the non-teaching
    line could not be appointed in the teaching line till they had
    acquired the Post-Graduate degree. This distinction always
    remained till the 1988 Rules when teaching and non-teaching
D   posts were treated as different cadres and the seniority in the
    teaching cadre was calculated from the date of their
    appointment as Assistant Professors. Even if the feeder post
    for appointment of Assistant Professors was Civil Assistant
    Surgeons at the initial stage, the said situation stood altered
E   with the amendment of the Rules whereunder Assistant
    Professors could be recruited only by way of direct recruitment.
    We do not, therefore, agree with the submissions made on
    behalf of the Respondents that such candidates, who had
    obtained lateral transfer from the non-teaching to the teaching
F   line, would be entitled to carry their period of service as non-
    teaching staff for the purpose of computing their seniority in the
    cadre of Assistant Professors, since the basic qualification for
    being appointed as Assistant Professors in the teaching line
    was a Post-Graduate degree, which the Respondents acquired
G   during the course of their service as Civil Assistant Surgeons
    and were thereafter transferred to the teaching line. The view
    of the Tribunal to the contrary cannot be supported having
    particular regard to the view expressed by this Court in N.
    Suresh Nathan's case (supra) and in Shailendra Dania's case
H   (supra), wherein the same view which we have taken, was taken
      CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. v.        657
THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
by this Court upon holding that those diploma holder Junior          A
Engineers who had obtained degrees while in service were not
entitled to count their service prior to obtaining the degree for
computing the required period for the purpose of promotion.

     24. The other decisions cited by Mr. Gururaja Rao in Dr.        8
N. Ramachandra Rao's case (supra), as stated hereinbefore,
would not have application to the facts of this case since in the
instant case it is a case of lateral transfer from one discipline
to another where seniority would have to be reckoned from the
date of joining the teaching line. Even the decision of this Court   C
in S.N. Dhingra's case (supra), cited by Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao,
cannot be of any application for the same reason.

    25. The Appeals and the Writ Petition No.566 of 2003,
must, therefore, succeed and are allowed. The judgments and
orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated           D
10th March, 1998 in 0.A. No.3599 of 1995 are, therefore, set
aside along with G.O.Ms. No.502 dated 13th September, 2003,
and G.O.Ms. No.325 dated 15th June, 1999, is restored
together with all consequences arising therefrom.
                                                                     E
     26. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear
their own costs.

K.K.T.                                          Matters allowed.